Power Of Judicial Review: Miranda V. Arizona

One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson

case. This case had to be heavly looked through before the court made the unpopular decision. This case also was a gets example of another judicial power to interperet laws.

Judicial Review
The legislative branch sets federal regulations, the executive branch signs the treaties and protects the country, and what does the Judicial branch have the power to do? Well, while the other two branches are off doing those things the Supreme Court sits back and watch them work. The Judicial branch’s role in the separation of powers allows them to watch the other two branches of government to make sure they are abiding by the Constitution. This process is known as judicial review. Judicial review gives the courts the power to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution (Tate, 2015). Actions deemed as unconstitutional are rejected and void by the supreme law of the land. Throughout history the Supreme Court had their work cut out for them on issues of the people’s civil and natural rights. Famous cases like Miranda v. Arizona, Weeks v. United States, and even Plessey v. Ferguson all involved the Supreme Court overturning decision using judicial review.
The case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, involved a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested on the account of raping a woman in Phoenix, Arizona. He was taken into custody and interrogated until he gave a confession of raping her. He was then convicted and sentenced 20 to 30 years in prison. But, Miranda was not informed of his rights like the right to a lawyer and to remain silent. After a while, an attorney asked the Arizona Supreme Court for a repeal because Miranda’s right were violated. When the court agreed, they asked the prosecutors to prove that Miranda was informed of his rights before being arrested. The court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them (“Miranda v. Arizona”, Wikipedia). On the other hand, years after this overturn, Miranda was taken to court again this time with witnesses than a confession. Again, Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison with the Supreme Court denying review because of valid evidence. Since the first ruling violated Miranda’s right the case was considered for review, but when it was done the right way no repeal was necessary.
The case Weeks v. United States was presented in 1914 with Fremont Weeks being suspected of giving away illegal lottery tickets through the U.S. mailing system. The police demanded a search of his home and the seizure of any related evidence. They walked off with most of Weeks’ possessions without a warrant. The case was then presented in court and the evidence found the police tried to use against him. There was a review placed on whether or not Weeks’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment was violated. The police searched and seized property without a warrant stated in the Fourth Amendment and his right not to testify against himself provided in the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the officers unconstitutional searched and kept Weeks’ possessions. This landmark ruling led to the “Exclusionary Rule,” which prohibits the use of evidence obtained in an illegal search in trial (“Judicial Review”, 2014).
On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessey was caught riding in the white section of a railroad car despite being black with the complexion of a white man.

This case was brought to the Supreme Court with Plessey’s argument being that his 13th and 14th Amendments was being violated. But Louisiana argued that the 14th Amendment states that everyone is to be treated equally and that is exactly what happened. They said that the cars were separate but equal and that abided by the Constitution while keeping the Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court decided that no law was violated and took the state’s side. The Court upheld Plessey’s conviction, and ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to “equal facilities,” not the “same facilities.” In this ruling, the Supreme Court created the principle of “separate but equal,”(“Judicial Review”,

2014).
The Supreme Court has a very important check and balance power this is unpredictible.

The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people

think.